Freedom of religion in the workplace is protected in the Netherlands by Article 6 of the Dutch Constitution, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the Equal Treatment Act (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling, AWGB). An employer may not treat an employee less favourably because of their religion or belief, and an apparently neutral rule that affects one religious group disproportionately is lawful only if it serves a legitimate aim and is both appropriate and necessary. There is no statutory right to a prayer break, a prayer room or leave on a religious holiday, but every request must be assessed individually and every refusal must be reasoned. Where an employer cannot show that reasoning, the legal risk lies with the employer.
Questions about praying during working hours, fasting during Ramadan, headscarves and refusing to shake hands reach the Dutch courts every year, and the outcome almost always turns on the quality of the employer’s assessment rather than on the religious practice itself. The employment law specialists at Law & More set out below what the rules require, how the burden of proof is divided, and what employers and employees can do when a conflict arises.
What freedom of religion at work actually protects
Freedom of religion protects two things: the freedom to hold a belief, and the freedom to act on it. The second limb is what matters at work, because it covers prayer, fasting, rest days, dietary rules, religious dress and the refusal to perform certain acts on grounds of conscience. An employee does not leave that right at the office door; the employment relationship is simply the setting in which it has to be reconciled with the interests of the business.
The right is not unlimited. Article 9(2) ECHR permits restrictions that are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society, and in the private employment relationship that balancing exercise runs mainly through the AWGB and through the duty of good employership in Article 7:611 of the Dutch Civil Code (BW). The practical consequence is that an employer is almost never asked whether a religious practice is genuine or theologically required, because courts do not assess doctrine. It is asked something narrower and much harder to answer after the event: was the restriction necessary, and was a workable alternative considered first.
The situations that produce friction are familiar. A Muslim employee whose prayer times fall inside the working day; a Christian who wants Good Friday off in a sector where it is an ordinary working day; a Jewish employee who cannot work from sunset on Friday; a Sikh who wears a turban under a safety helmet. None of these is unusual in a Dutch workforce, and none of them has a single answer that applies across every employer. What the law prescribes is a method, not an outcome.
The legal framework governing religion at work
Article 6 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and belief, and Article 9 ECHR gives the same guarantee at European level and can be relied on directly before a Dutch court. At EU level, Council Directive 2000/78/EC establishes a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation and expressly covers religion and belief; Dutch law implements it through the AWGB.
Within the AWGB, Article 5 is the operative provision for employment. It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion in advertising a vacancy, in recruitment and selection, in entering into and terminating a contract, in terms and conditions of employment, in training and in promotion. Article 1 defines direct and indirect discrimination, Article 2 sets out when indirect discrimination can be objectively justified, and Article 8a prohibits disadvantaging anyone because they invoked the Act or assisted someone who did. That last provision is the one that protects an employee who files a complaint from retaliation, and it is often the strongest card in the hand of an employee whose position deteriorates immediately after raising the issue.
Two further statutes do a great deal of the practical work. Article 2 of the Flexible Working Act (Wet flexibel werken, Wfw) gives an employee who has been employed for at least 26 weeks the right to request an adjustment of working hours, working time or place of work. Article 4:1a of the Working Hours Act (Arbeidstijdenwet) requires an employer, when setting working and rest time patterns, to take account of the employee’s personal circumstances so far as can reasonably be required. Religious obligations fall squarely within that wording, which is why a rigid roster is a weaker defence than employers often assume.
There are limits to the scope of the Act. Article 3 AWGB places relationships within religious denominations, their independent parts and the spiritual ministry outside its reach, and Article 5 allows organisations founded on a religious or political basis to impose requirements that are genuinely necessary in the light of those founding principles. Public sector employers work within the same equal treatment framework but also under the standards of the Civil Servants Act 2017 (Ambtenarenwet 2017), which is where the older case law on the neutrality of officials in public-facing roles is located.
Direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of religion
Direct discrimination is treatment that is expressly based on religion: an applicant is turned down because she is Muslim, or an employee is dismissed because he wears a kippah. Under the AWGB direct discrimination cannot be objectively justified. The only escape routes are the narrow statutory exceptions, which means that an appeal to house style, neutrality, business ethics or what customers are assumed to prefer does not save it.
Indirect discrimination is the more common and more difficult problem. It arises where a rule that says nothing about religion nevertheless hits one religious group far harder than others: a blanket ban on head coverings, a requirement that all staff be available on Saturdays, a policy prohibiting face-covering clothing in client-facing roles. Such a rule is permitted only where all three of the following conditions are met at the same time.
- The measure pursues a legitimate aim, such as safety, hygiene or a genuine and determining occupational requirement.
- The measure is appropriate to achieve that aim.
- The measure is necessary and proportionate, meaning that no less restrictive alternative would achieve the same result.
The conditions are cumulative. If the aim is legitimate but a less intrusive alternative was available, the rule is unlawful all the same, and in practice it is the third condition that decides most cases.
The Court of Justice of the European Union approaches workplace neutrality in the same way. In Achbita (C-157/15) it accepted that an internal rule banning all visible political, philosophical and religious signs may pursue a legitimate aim, but only where the rule is applied generally and without distinction and where the employer has considered whether the employee could be offered a post without visual contact with customers. In WABE and MH Muller Handel (C-804/18 and C-341/19) it added that the employer must show a genuine need for such a policy and pursue it consistently and systematically. A rule that in practice reaches only the headscarf is not a neutrality policy at all; it is direct discrimination in a different wrapper.
Praying during working hours
There is no statutory obligation to grant prayer breaks, but a request must be assessed on its merits and a refusal must be capable of being justified. That is the whole rule, and it explains why employers who simply say no tend to lose these cases.
In a judgment of 26 September 2025 (ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2025:11085), the Rechtbank Noord-Holland dealt with a service technician who asked to pray once or twice a day in a separate room. The employer refused and suggested that he pray in the company van during his break, which the employee explained was unsuitable because the prayer requires contact with the ground. He was then dismissed during his probationary period. A probationary dismissal normally requires no reason at all, but it may not be based on a prohibited ground, and the court found that the employer had not shown that religion played no part in the decision. It awarded compensation for the improper dismissal, the transition payment and fair compensation, expressly taking into account how wounding the decision had been.
The practical lesson is about method. A prayer takes a few minutes and can often be absorbed into an existing break, so the question a court puts to the employer is not whether it was obliged to say yes, but whether it genuinely examined the request. Was an unused meeting room available? Could break times be shifted by a quarter of an hour? Was the same flexibility granted to other employees for non-religious reasons, such as a school run or a physiotherapy appointment? An employer that can answer those questions from contemporaneous records is in a strong position. An employer that reconstructs its reasoning after receiving a letter from a lawyer is not: courts attach little weight to internal notes drawn up after the dispute began.
A prayer room follows the same logic. No employer is required to build or permanently designate one. But where a suitable space stands empty and the request is refused anyway, the refusal starts to look like a decision about the employee’s religion rather than about the business, and that is exactly the impression that shifts the burden of proof.
Fasting, Ramadan and adjusting working hours
An employee who fasts may ask to start and finish earlier, to shorten the lunch break or to swap shifts. The route for that request is Article 2 of the Flexible Working Act. The employee must have been employed for at least 26 weeks by the intended starting date and must make the request in writing at least two months in advance. A request to change working time or working hours must be granted unless serious business or service interests (zwaarwegende bedrijfs- of dienstbelangen) stand in the way, which means demonstrable safety problems, a roster that genuinely cannot be filled, or serious financial or organisational consequences.
Two features of the Act are easy to overlook and decisive in practice. First, the employer must decide in writing, and if it has not decided one month before the intended starting date, the adjustment takes effect as requested. Silence costs the employer the point. Second, a refusal has to be reasoned; a general reference to operational requirements, without any examination of alternatives, does not meet the standard. Where the underlying reason for the request is religious, a defective refusal is not only a breach of the Wfw but may also amount to indirect discrimination under the AWGB, with a considerably more expensive set of remedies attached.
Employers sometimes ask whether they may intervene if a fasting employee appears less alert or works in a safety-critical role. The duty of care under the Working Conditions Act (Arbeidsomstandighedenwet) is real, and temporarily reassigning duties can be defensible where there is a concrete, documented risk, such as operating heavy machinery in high summer temperatures. What is not defensible is a general assumption that people who fast underperform, or a blanket measure applied to everyone observing Ramadan. The assessment must be individual, evidence-based and recorded, and it should be discussed with the employee rather than imposed.
Leave for religious holidays
There is no statutory right to leave on religious holidays that fall outside the recognised Dutch public holidays. Eid al-Fitr, Yom Kippur, Diwali and Orthodox Christmas are ordinary working days as a matter of law, and an employee who wants the day off applies for holiday leave in the normal way under Article 7:638 BW.
That provision gives the employer only a limited power to refuse. The employer fixes holiday in accordance with the employee’s wishes unless serious grounds (gewichtige redenen) stand in the way, and it must raise those grounds in writing within two weeks of the written request. If it does not object in time, the holiday is fixed as requested. Employers who let a request sit in an inbox over a busy fortnight regularly discover this rule too late.
Beyond the leave rules, consistency does the real work. An employer that routinely accommodates a long weekend but refuses a single day for a religious festival, without being able to point to any difference in operational impact, is producing precisely the evidence an employee needs to establish a presumption of discrimination. It is also worth checking the applicable collective labour agreement (cao) before treating the statutory position as the complete answer: many contain clauses on religious holidays or allow public holidays to be exchanged for days that matter to the individual employee.
Dress codes and religious symbols: headscarf, kippah, cross, turban
Wearing a headscarf, kippah, cross or turban is protected as an expression of religion, so a prohibition is either direct discrimination, where it targets particular religions, or indirect discrimination requiring objective justification. Restrictions survive scrutiny only in a narrow band of situations: genuine safety requirements, such as loose fabric near moving machinery or headwear that prevents a helmet from fitting; hygiene rules in food processing and healthcare; and a general neutrality policy that meets the conditions the Court of Justice has set. Corporate image on its own is a weak aim, and customer preference is not a legitimate aim at all.
Refusing to shake hands sits at the sharpest edge of this subject, and two Dutch decisions show how much the context decides. In ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:19487 the Rechtbank Den Haag considered an IT service desk employee who declined, on religious grounds, to shake hands with a female team leader and apologised for the awkwardness by email. He was dismissed during his probationary period, officially for not meeting expectations. The court held that the dismissal rested on a prohibited ground: the employer could not show that shaking hands was necessary for the role, and no alternative form of greeting had been considered. Fair compensation was awarded.
Compare the decision of the Centrale Raad van Beroep of 2009 (ECLI:NL:CRVB:2009:BI2440), in which the suspension and subsequent dismissal of a public official who refused to shake hands with women was upheld. In that specific public-facing role, a uniform form of greeting was accepted as serving a sufficiently weighty interest. The same practice, opposite outcomes: the difference lies in the role, the sector and the seriousness of the employer’s reasoning, not in the belief.
Who has to prove what
Article 10 AWGB reverses the ordinary allocation of the burden of proof once the employee has cleared a low first hurdle. The employee must put forward facts from which discrimination may be presumed: a colleague in a comparable position who was treated differently, the complete absence of reasoning from the employer, a dismissal that follows shortly after a religious request, or a policy applied inconsistently. Full proof is not required at that stage. If the court accepts that the facts give rise to a presumption, the employer must then prove that it did not act in breach of the Act, or that the measure was objectively justified.
What fails at that second stage is predictable. A general appeal to house style, to neutrality or to assumed customer preference is not enough. Neither is a policy that exists only on paper, nor one applied to a headscarf but never to a cross. Documents created after the dispute arose carry little weight, because their purpose is obvious. Evidence that does work runs the other way: an employee can rely on comparative or statistical material, and where members of one religious group are systematically refused what others are granted, the presumption is established without difficulty.
What a breach costs an employer
Where a dismissal is tainted by discrimination and the employer cannot rebut the presumption, the subdistrict court can annul the notice or, if the employee prefers not to return, award fair compensation instead under Article 7:681 BW. Fair compensation (billijke vergoeding) then sits alongside the transition payment under Article 7:673 BW and, where the notice period was not observed, compensation for irregular termination. Non-material damage can be claimed under Article 6:106 BW where the discrimination has caused a recognised injury to the person. A costs order follows, and a published ruling of the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens) often does more reputational damage than the money. Our separate article on religious discrimination in the workplace deals with the compensation framework in more detail.
Courts treat the systematic refusal of religious accommodation, a dismissal that follows closely on a religious request, and selectively applied dress rules as seriously culpable conduct on the part of the employer. That finding is what drives fair compensation upwards. There is no tariff: the amount is set case by case on the basis of length of service, loss of income, the employee’s prospects on the labour market and the seriousness of what the employer did.
What an employee can do
Act quickly and on paper. The first step is an internal complaint, in writing, to the employer or to the internal complaints committee. It creates a record, it gives the employer the opportunity to correct course, and its absence is sometimes held against an employee later. Article 8a AWGB protects an employee who takes this step from being disadvantaged for having taken it.
A request for a ruling from the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens) can be submitted free of charge and without a lawyer. Its rulings are not legally binding, but they are reasoned, authoritative and regularly relied on by courts, and for an employee who wants the practice corrected rather than money, this route often achieves more than litigation.
Where the situation is urgent, for example a suspension or an immediate removal from the roster, interim relief can be sought from the preliminary relief judge in summary proceedings (kort geding) under Article 254 Rv. For a definitive ruling, proceedings are brought before the subdistrict court (kantonrechter), and timing is critical: an application to annul a dismissal or to obtain fair compensation must be filed within two months of the end of the employment contract (Article 7:686a(4)(a) BW). That period cannot be extended, and it is the single most common reason a strong discrimination claim never gets heard.
Evidence held by the employer can be obtained. Since 1 January 2025 the right to inspect documents in the possession of the other party is governed by Articles 194 and following of the Code of Civil Procedure (Rv), which replaced the former Article 843a Rv. An employee who can identify specific documents, such as the internal note recording the decision, the correspondence about the request or the policy as it stood at the time, and who has a legitimate interest in seeing them, can ask the court to order disclosure, if necessary reinforced by a penalty payment.
How employers reduce the risk
Most disputes in this field are lost on process rather than on principle, which is encouraging: the risk is largely controllable. Put the policy on religious expression, prayer facilities, dress and leave in writing before a request arrives, so that decisions are measured against a standard rather than improvised. Assess each request individually and record the assessment at the time, including the alternatives considered and why they were rejected. Apply the policy consistently across religions and, just as importantly, consistently with how comparable non-religious requests are handled, because the comparison with the colleague who was allowed to leave early is what an employee will put before the court.
Managers and team leaders make most of these decisions in the moment, so they need to know that a religious request is not an ordinary scheduling matter and that a flat refusal is the one response that is never safe. A short internal escalation rule, requiring any refusal of a religious request to be signed off and reasoned, removes most of the exposure at very little cost.
Public sector employers work within the same framework, but the neutrality argument carries more weight in genuinely public-facing roles, as the 2009 Centrale Raad van Beroep decision illustrates. That is not a licence to impose neutrality across an entire organisation. A rule adopted for the service counter cannot simply be extended to the back office, and an employer that does so will be asked why the same interest applies to an employee no member of the public ever sees.
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Can my employer prohibit me from praying during working hours?
An outright prohibition is not permissible in most situations. The employer must genuinely assess your request and can only refuse if there are compelling, objectively justified business interests. Courts consistently hold that a brief prayer break of a few minutes does not constitute a disproportionate burden. Refusal without a proper explanation is legally risky.
Is my employer obliged to provide a prayer room?
There is no absolute statutory obligation. However, where there are no compelling practical objections, refusal to accommodate a request for a prayer space can constitute prohibited discrimination. Employers are well advised to designate an available space, such as a spare meeting room, for this purpose.
Can I as an employee request different working hours during Ramadan?
You can submit a written request under the Flexible Working Act. The employer is in principle required to grant the request unless there are compelling business interests against it. Any refusal must be specifically reasoned, and it must be shown that alternatives are not feasible.
Can my employer prohibit me from wearing a headscarf?
Only if the prohibition forms part of a coherent, systematic and consistently applied neutrality policy, provided there is a legitimate aim and the prohibition is necessary and proportionate. A prohibition that is applied selectively — targeting only certain religions — constitutes direct discrimination.
What are my rights if I am dismissed because of my religion?
Dismissal on grounds of religion is prohibited in virtually all circumstances. You can have the dismissal annulled, claim fair compensation, and request a ruling from the College for Human Rights. Seek legal advice as quickly as possible — a two-month limitation period applies to contesting dismissal.
What is the College for Human Rights?
The College voor de Rechten van de Mens is an independent national body that investigates whether prohibited discrimination has occurred. You can submit a request free of charge. A ruling is not legally binding, but carries considerable authority and is taken into account by courts.
Can an employer refuse leave for religious holidays?
There is no statutory right to leave for non-recognised religious holidays. However, the employer must assess a leave request based on religious obligations seriously. Arbitrary or unequal treatment — granting comparable requests from some employees but not others without clear justification — can constitute prohibited discrimination.
What if my employer has a company policy that restricts my religious practice?
Company regulations that conflict with the AWGB or the Constitution are void. You can rely directly on the higher legal norms. Courts will disapply conflicting policy provisions and provide protection, including the restoration of rights with retroactive effect.
How do I prove that I have been discriminated against on grounds of religion?
You do not need to provide full proof. It is sufficient to put forward facts and circumstances that give rise to a presumption of prohibited discrimination — such as unequal treatment compared to colleagues, a lack of reasoning from the employer, or inconsistent application of policy. The burden of proof then shifts to the employer.
When should I consult a lawyer?
As soon as you experience a conflict over your freedom of religion in the workplace — particularly if dismissal, suspension or the systematic refusal of religious accommodations is involved. At Law & More, our employment law specialists are ready to assist both employers and employees.
Advice on freedom of religion in the workplace
Case law on freedom of religion in the workplace continues to develop, and the margin between a defensible restriction and prohibited discrimination is narrower than most employers expect. Law & More advises employers on drafting and applying policy on religious expression, prayer facilities, dress codes and leave, and assists employees who are refused an accommodation or dismissed after making a religious request, including in proceedings before the subdistrict court and before the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights.
Our employment lawyers work from Eindhoven and Amsterdam and advise in Dutch, English and a range of other languages. If you are facing a decision about a religious request, or a dispute that has already arisen, you are welcome to contact us to discuss your position.
